bcn_get_ley_historica

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It doesn't state whether the response includes version history, footnotes, effective date transitions, or whether the lookup requires the law to have actually been in force at that date. For a temporal-query tool, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, no wasted words. It is dense but appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, no annotations, and only one sentence. For a temporal legal retrieval tool, the description should explain what a 'historical' query returns (current version? historical version? annotations?) and any prerequisites. It's minimally adequate but leaves key behavioral questions unanswered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the YYYY-MM-DD format and purpose of 'articulo'. The description reinforces the date concept ('fecha histórica específica (YYYY-MM-DD)') but adds little beyond the schema; baseline would be 3 with high coverage, but the description's date-format hint is slightly additive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States specific verb+resource+scope: retrieves the text of a Chilean law as in force at a specific historical date, for intertemporal law control. This clearly distinguishes it from historical code lookups (bcn_get_codigo_historico) by specifying 'ley' vs 'código', though the wording is dense.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose statement implies usage (intertemporal control) but offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like bcn_get_ley (current law) or bcn_get_codigo_historico. An agent must infer the choice from 'vigente en una fecha histórica específica'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.